GOD'S HOUSE
GOD’S HOUSE
1 Timothy 2; 1 Timothy 3; Mark 11: 17
The thought before me is to bring under your attention the truth of the house of God, and the features which should mark God’s house. What I have to say will come pretty much under those two heads. I first want to give an idea of the force of the expression, “the house of God”, as we gather it from Scripture. The house of God is the church of the living God. Two expressions are used as to the church; it is the body of Christ, and it is the house of God. The latter occurs in 1 Timothy 3, where the apostle says, “These things I write unto thee ... that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God”. It is a great point for us, and where the truth becomes practical, to see the moral features which were to characterise the house of God; because whatever may be its present ruin, we may return to those moral features when we cannot revive the house of God as it was at first. And when the house of God has become practically what is spoken of in the second epistle to Timothy, “a great house”, and it has now that character, and you have to purge yourselves from vessels to dishonour, the call is to return to the truth as it was from the beginning. Thus it is very important to know what are the true characteristics of the house of God. It is for that purpose that I read the passage in 1 Timothy.
Now, my practical difficulty is to distinguish between the temple of God, on which I dwelt last time, and the house of God. There is evidently a connection in the two thoughts, but also a clear distinction between them. Both are true; there is the temple of God, and there is the house of God; and I trust to be enabled [p. 133] to make the distinction clear before I pass on to speak of what characterises the house of God. Referring for a moment to the truth of the temple, I notice that the temple of God is not spoken of as a present thing, except in connection with a local assembly; and on the other hand, a local assembly is not spoken of as the house of God. I can understand Ephesians 2:22, where it says, “In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit”, being advanced against this. But I think the idea there is not that of a local assembly, but the more general one of Jew and Gentile builded together for a habitation of God by the Spirit. And wherever else the house of God is spoken of, it is either in the catholic epistles or in the epistles to individuals. You find it in Hebrews, in the first epistle of Peter, and in the first epistle to Timothy, and perhaps in the second; but in no case is it referred to in an epistle written to a particular church; that is, the idea of the house of God is more general and extended. On the other hand, it is important to remember that, as I said, the temple of God is not spoken of as a present thing, except in connection with a local assembly. Of course there is the other thought, in the epistle to the Ephesians, “all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord”; but that does not present the temple as a present complete thing here.
The apostle’s point in bringing forward to the Corinthians the truth of the temple is to show them that they lacked no kind of privilege which properly belonged to the people of God down here. God’s temple, the Christ, and the victory over death were theirs, for the kingdom was established, at all events the kingdom in mystery. Now I deduce from this, that the idea of the temple is privilege; privilege belonging to a local assembly. What the privilege meant I tried to indicate last week — that the grace and [p. 134] light of God were present in the company in whom the Spirit dwelt. And the apostle brings this forward in order to meet the evil of attaching importance to man as such. Light from God and grace were present in the temple, and therefore man and man’s mind were nowhere there; the one who dwelt in the temple was the Spirit, and the spiritual man was the only man of any account in the temple of God.
The house of God is on the other hand a truth of wider bearing. Let us go back for a moment to the Old Testament; the tabernacle was the house of God, but then the thought of the house of God took in not merely the tent, but the whole surroundings; the court of the tabernacle was as much a part of the house of God as was the tabernacle itself. So, too, with the temple; the courts of the temple were of the house of God as well as the temple itself, though the scripture is careful to distinguish between the building, that is, the actual temple, and the more general idea. For instance, I think I might say that the Lord never went into the temple, that is, into the actual building — the shrine, so to speak — because He was not of the priestly family: “If he were on earth, he should not be a priest”. Morally, too, the temple was superseded by His presence here; He says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up”; “but he spake of the temple of his body”. But He still acknowledged the temple as His Father’s house, and He taught in the courts of the temple; He was ever to be found, when He went to Jerusalem, teaching in the courts of the temple whither the Jews resorted.
In the passage I read in Mark, “He taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer?” That was the proper character of God’s house. The house takes in the whole idea; not simply of the building, but of the courts which surrounded the building; and in that sense it was God’s house, a house of prayer for all [p. 135] nations. I think if you have followed me you will see the distinction there is between the temple and the house of God; that the temple, properly speaking, refers to the building, and in this sense it is used in 1 Corinthians 3, and the house of God is a larger thought, which takes in not only the actual building, but the precincts of the building. Then again, as to the house of God, we gather from what is written that it was not simply to be the place of priestly service, but to be characterised by being a house of prayer for all nations.
Now I think I can point out to you the same distinction both in Corinthians and in the Revelation, and if I succeed, it will give you a pretty clear idea on the one hand of the temple — which is connected with privilege, the grace and light of God being there — and on the other hand of the house of God, which refers to profession. Turn to 1 Corinthians 1: 2: “To the assembly of God which is in Corinth” — mark the next part of the verse — “to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints” — and then mark — “with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. Now it is perfectly clear that you get two distinct ideas in that verse; on the one hand, those addressed are seen as “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints”; on the other hand, there is the recognition of profession, but of profession in the right and true sense, not the kind of profession which is abroad in the present day; “with all that in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both theirs and ours”. What I make of it is this; in the first part of the verse is the principle of the temple; in the latter part I see the principle of the house. Because I do not understand the temple of God to be composed of anything but living stones; it is a “spiritual house”. The Corinthians are looked at in that sense as “sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints”, and the apostle can say [p. 136] that they are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelt in them. But then the apostle recognises also in a general way the profession of those who call on the Lord, that is, that they were the house of God; I think the first part of the epistle goes largely on that ground. In chapter 3, in speaking about the temple, I think the apostle alludes to what was their spiritual privilege. The word which is used for “temple” in that chapter is not the general idea of the building and its courts in the external sense, but a word which is specially applied to the building itself, the shrine.
In Revelation 11 there is a passage which I think gives us the same thought. John says, “There was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein”. Now mark, there you have what is real; it is not Christianity which is in view, but at all events real saints. And the temple is distinguished from the altar, although both temple and altar were included in the house. It is the temple of God, and the altar, and the worshippers; in other words, it is those who had a real living link with God. “But”, he says, “the court which is without the temple” — which is included in the general idea of the house — “leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles” that is, the outward profession of Judaism in that day is given up unto the Gentiles — “and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months”. The Spirit of God first distinguishes real saints, and then speaks of the public outward profession, which is included in the idea of the house, just as the court was included in the idea of the house, and that is given up to the Gentiles for the last half week of Daniel. I bring the passage forward, because it is a very distinct recognition of the inward and outward, and both included in the general idea of the house of God.
I believe that we have sometimes looked at the [p. 137] temple of God in 1 Corinthians 3 as analogous to the house of God; but I do not think it is. The apostle brings before the Corinthians in chapter 3 their proper privilege, as being God’s temple, just as in the similar thought of “the Christ” in chapter 12; it was not simply that they had the temple of God, but they were the temple of God. And I think the idea of the temple as a spiritual house just accords with the first epistle of Peter; “a spiritual house”, “a holy priesthood”, and so on. In the first epistle to the Corinthians the truth is brought out that they were a spiritual house; in the second epistle that they were a holy priesthood. But in chapter 1 of the first epistle he joins with them all that call on the name of the Lord Jesus, “both theirs and ours”. Now if you want me to put it in simple, plain language, the house of God, as I understand it, is the profession of Christianity. Just bear in mind that the expression “house of God” is not found as far as I am aware, in connection with the local assembly any more than the kingdom is. It is the profession of Christianity here upon earth which has the responsibility of being the house of God. I fully admit it has lapsed into the character of “a great house”; but in its normal condition, it was properly those who called on the name of the Lord Jesus. In speaking of profession, I do not, as I have said, mean unreal profession, but what the world could take account of; it was public.
There are some verses in Hebrews 3 which perhaps will give us the thought of it: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
[p. 138] And Moses verily was faithful in all his house” — that is, God’s house — “as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as Son over his house” — not “His own house”, but God’s house — “whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end”. There are two or three very important thoughts in this passage; and the first is that the house of God in the largest extent of it is all things. The tabernacle was the pattern of the universe of God, that is, the universe in which the ways of God are displayed in their result. It has often been remarked that there was a sort of picture there of the three heavens; but I take it that what was taught in the tabernacle was the way in which God connected Himself with the universe, and that the tabernacle in that sense was the pattern of all things. I believe it will come out in that way; and that, as the issue of the ways of God, the whole universe will have the character of being the house of God. Then there is another thought connected with the passage, that Christ is Son over God’s house. Moses was a servant, and faithful in the type and figure of it; but Christ is Son over God’s house; that is His place in connection with the universe of God. Then we get a third thought, that at this time Christians constitute the house of God. As the apostle says, “whose house are we, if we hold fast” — we are on the ground of responsibility — to “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end”. It is the recognition of Christian profession, and of its place of privilege. And it is to be remarked that the epistle to the Hebrews is not an epistle addressed to a particular church, but a kind of treatise for Jewish Christians. The house of God is not spoken of as the privilege of any particular local assembly; but the apostle is speaking generally of Christianity.
There is one verse also in 1 Peter 4: 17: “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house [p. 139] of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” The apostle in the opening verses of the epistle had addressed himself “to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”. The epistle to the Hebrews was written very possibly for the help of Jewish Christians in the land; the epistles of Peter were addressed to the Jews of the dispersion. In the verse that I read we find that those who profess Christ — that is the “us” — are those who constitute the house of God. He says, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God”; and if it first begin at “us”, there you get the identification of Christian profession with the house of God. And the house of God in its present constitution is subject to the judgment of God. I do not think you could say that God will judge the temple; God will destroy the defiler, but the temple of God comes out holy. On the other hand, the house of God, the “court without”, as in the Revelation, the external profession of Christianity, is subject to the judgment of God. The house of God will come to an end in its present character; but the idea of the house of God does not come to an end, because in result all things constitute the house of God; and Christ is Son over God’s house. I trust I have made the points clear; evidently the thought of the house of God in its present aspect refers to the outward profession of Christianity.
Now I must guard that by one remark. The common idea that people have of profession in the present day is that it must always be mere profession; the expression ‘profession’ is often put in contradistinction to possession. But the two things ought to go together, profession and possession. It is a great mistake to put aside profession, and say it is worth nothing at all. It is very important, and carries with it responsibility; the house of God is judged on the ground of the profession they make. Every one of [p. 140] us here tonight is a professed Christian, we all call on the name of the Lord Jesus; but I trust we all have possession, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The five wise virgins were right to have lamps; but they not only had lamps, but oil in their vessels with their lamps. The five foolish virgins had lamps, that is, the mark of external profession, but they had not the oil in their vessels with their lamps; their lights burnt for a time, but there was no spiritual power to sustain the light, and hence they were not ready for the bridegroom. Profession is a right thing enough, and an intended thing on the part of God; the terrible part is the possibility of having profession without the Holy Spirit. You see it all around in the present day, Christian profession without an atom of spiritual power or discernment; mere profession, as you would call it. But profession in itself is right, and distinguishes from the world. The world cannot tell whether I have the Holy Spirit, and am a member of Christ; but the world can tell whether I am professedly a Christian, and whether I am consistent with my profession; that is what the world can see.
I desire now to give you some of the marks and features which are proper to the house of God. The verse in Mark 11 gives us, I think, a great idea of the house of God: Jesus taught them, saying, “Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves”. There is not any allusion in that passage to anything connected with the worship of God or the temple service; but the Lord speaks, as in Isaiah 56: 7, of the house of God as being a house of prayer for all nations. It is really, if I understand it, the point where God put Himself in contact with those who were outside His people; it was a house of prayer for all nations. I think we get the same principle in 1 Timothy 2, in these verses: “I exhort therefore, that [p. 141] first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”. As I understand it, it is in God’s house that God puts Himself in a sense in touch with all men. That brings in the first feature, which is to characterise the house of God — prayer for all men. Christians are not to be indifferent to the welfare of all men, nor indeed to the government of God down here; and therefore the saints are put in the place of intercession, and prayer is to be the great characteristic of the house of God.
Mark now the verses that follow. “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”. The truth resided in the saints, in the house, but the thought of God went out to all men. It has been said that if the meetings were indifferent to the gospel, to the thought of “all men”, they would wither. Such was not the thought of God at all; and the church was in the place of intercession on behalf of all men on the ground that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”. The apostle goes on to say, “For there is one God, and one mediator” — not between men and God, but — “between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all”. The truth of it was in the house, and it was in the house that the attitude of God toward all men was known; and therefore the church was to make intercession for all men, “that we might live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”; that is, that there might be no hindrance to the promulgation of God’s thought and will in regard to all men, that God “would have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”; there was adequate ground for it in that Christ had given Himself “a ransom for all”. Nothing is a greater hindrance to [p. 142] the truth than the exclusive use of one side of the truth. Take an Arminian on the one hand, or a Calvinist on the other; both are great hinderers of the truth, because they each take up one side of the truth and exclude the other. What we want is the even balance between the two. I believe on the one hand in the truth of election; I am perfectly confident you could have no security for anything without it; if God is going to have a family in heaven, it must be an elect family. But on the other hand, I find the truth equally clearly stated in Scripture, that “there is ... one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all”.
What I have said gives you, I think, the position of the house of God. And here it is not a question of a local assembly, it is the position of Christian profession, on the one hand in regard to God, and on the other in regard to all men; and the first great characteristic of Christian profession is prayer; the house of God is to be marked by prayer. You get no idea here of the temple or of the holiest, but the marks of the true profession of Christianity; the men are to pray everywhere.
I pursue the passage. It says, “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety”. Again I make the remark that the apostle is not concerned with a [p. 143] meeting, a local assembly; but with the proper character of Christian profession. The house of God is to be marked by piety and decorous demeanour; what is to mark the men is prayer; and what is to adorn the women is good works. Those are two things which were to be seen — the men praying “everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting”, and the women adorned not with what might make them conspicuous in this world, but with good works. The activity is in a sense more connected with the men, and the adornment with the women; but each is to have its own proper character and direction.
I often think how little we carry out these things, how little the men are characterised by prayer. It is not ‘men’ simply, but “the men”; that is, the men who are within the sphere of the house of God, Christian profession. I think it refers to prayer in public, and not merely in private; but the point is not exactly the occasion of it, but what is to characterise the men. When we come together to pray, it puts all of us to shame that we are so little prepared for prayer; and yet the men in the house of God are to be marked by prayer. So, too, in regard to women; there is to be the absence of the adornment that passes current in the world, “but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works”. The point is that the adornment of the women is not to be external but moral; and a beautiful adornment it is! Elsewhere, the adornment mentioned is that of “a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price”. A woman is not to be conspicuous, because she has to bow her head in remembrance that Eve was in the transgression. Adam was not deceived, the woman was deceived. “The serpent beguiled Eve by his subtilty”; the man entered into the transgression; and the woman, as having been in the transgression, has to accept it, and is to be adorned — you can understand the contrast — by good works, and [p. 144] to be in all subjection to the man. That is the relative place of the man and the woman in the house of God, where God, as it were, touches man, and where prayer and intercession go up to God for all men.
There are two other features given in the third chapter which mark the house of God, oversight and ministry. You could not conceive God’s house being a scene of confusion, or uncared for; such a thought would not be worthy of God; “God is not the author of confusion”. When I speak of ministry, I do not refer to ministry in a spiritual sense, but as meeting temporal needs. There was to be oversight in regard to men’s souls, and ministry in regard to their bodies; those were the two things which were to be seen in the house of God, for the house of God was regulated of God; it was where God was. Hence it says, “If a man desire the office of a bishop” — that is, an overseer — “he desireth a good work”. A man was justified in coveting the office of an overseer. And the marks of the overseer are given in order that one who was competent to be such might be recognised. Then, too, there was ministry for temporal needs; and not on the part of men only, but on the part of women; for there is the recognition, not only of deacons but of deaconesses, and the qualifications are given here also.
There is no such thing as an appointing power now; but the qualifications are given in order that an elder or a deacon might be recognised. A man who desired the office of an overseer desired a good work, but he must have the necessary marks; he must be a married man and have children, he proves his competency to exercise oversight in the house of God by the way in which he rules his own family. If a man had a disorderly family, if he had not his own children in subjection, though he might be a teacher or might have some other gift, yet he was not competent to be an elder and to care for the house of God. So, too, with regard to a deacon; a deacon was to be a married [p. 145] man, or else he could not well enter into his work, and he was to have an orderly house. There is an important word in connection with the deacon, that those who exercise “the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus”. It has often been noticed, and I think truly, that this was exemplified in the case of Stephen; he began by being a deacon, and afterwards he became a most distinguished witness of Christ; he purchased to himself “a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus”.
Then the apostle tells Timothy the reason he writes. He writes, “hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth”. It is a very great thing for a man to know how he is to behave himself in the house of God, that is, in the sphere of Christian profession, especially one in the place of a servant.
There is a further thought. Even in the apostle’s day, alas! you see profession parting company from possession, and the house of God becoming “a great house”; and hence the apostle saw the need of saints purging themselves from vessels to dishonour. You cannot get out of the house, for you can get out of Christian profession only by apostasy; but you have to purge yourselves from vessels to dishonour, and to “follow righteousness, faith, love, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart”. Most of us have had to leave associations in which perhaps we were born and brought up, to purge ourselves from vessels to dishonour and to find out another path, that is, to “pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”. But then, if you have done that, you want guidance; and the only guidance which you have from God is the [p. 146] original order for the house of God. You cannot re-establish the house of God; it is going on to judgment; but you can understand the principles which were to be seen in the house of God, and fall back upon them for your guidance. We can see the true intercessory place in which the house of God, the saints, were set; we can see what was to characterise the men, and what was to be the adornment of the women, the prayer and the good works; and we can see, too, the oversight and the ministry which were provided there.
That is our path, beloved friends. One of the greatest privileges that I know of is that we can return to first principles. When I first came away from other associations, I remember being confronted with the idea that what you find in Scripture as to early days is impracticable now. But what is of God and God’s direction can never be impracticable. The Spirit is still here, and the point is to go back to what was from the outset; it is the only guidance you have.
I trust by the grace of God I have made the thought of the house somewhat plain. I think anyone who has followed me can conceive the idea of the house, as well as of the temple. Both are presented to us in Scripture. But alas! the house of God is going on to judgment. It will be left by all that is of God, and the heaviest judgments from God will fall upon that which has had the responsibility of being the house of God. Thank God we have been awakened to see it, and to purge ourselves; and may God give us grace that in lowliness of mind we may go on pursuing “righteousness, faith, love, peace, with those that call upon the Lord out of a pure heart”, guided by the true principles of the house of God. May God stir the men up to prayer; I am sure we need to be stirred up to it; and the women to care less about outward adornment, but that they may be adorned with good works. That is the adornment for God, and that is the true adornment in the presence of men.